The Environmentalist’s Guide to Voting in California

Please note: I am a blogger and these are my recommendations. It is my expectation that you take them for what they are (opinions) and make the best decisions for yourself.

Overview

The California General Election is on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. People have been asking for my opinions on who and what to vote for at this upcoming election. I have done my best to research each topic or candidate to decide who or what to vote for. I spent hours reading about these propositions and people, which included reviewing a matrix that stated how certain organizations would be voting. Some contain more details than others. For the issues I felt were not necessarily relevant to supporting environmental issues were noted as such.

If you think I missed the mark on any of these issues, please leave a comment below so we can have a nice discussion about it.

There is a concept called the Triple Bottom Line where we focus on a balance of People, Planet and Profit. I don’t see how we, as a society, can say we support the People side of it with the tens of thousands of Californians living on the street.

Prop 3: Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and Groundwater Sustainability and Storage

Vote: NO

This appears to be an initiative that would bolster huge infrastructure projects under the guise of environmental protection. I agree that we need to maintain our water infrastructure, but not at the expense air quality and building unnecessary dams and reservoirs.

The biggest red flag for me on this one would be the ability to take money out of California’s Cap-and-Trade program and reallocate it to water projects. The purpose of the Cap-and-Trade program is to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases emitted through energy generation and transmission and commerce in general. Meeting the State’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals will be hard enough in the current climate, so I don’t want to do anything that will reduce the funds available.

As an alternative solution, we should be focusing on utilizing our water resources more efficiently prior to building more infrastructure. In our current culture, we focus on taking fewer showers and letting our lawns go dry, when in fact, those steps on the municipal level barely make a dent. The overwhelming majority of our water goes to support Central Valley agriculture, and there are quite a bit of problems with our current water policy

The Sierra Club and California Green Party oppose Prop 3, so that should be reason enough to take pause.

Our roads and infrastructure need all the help they can get. As cars have become more fuel efficient and/or run on electricity, we just aren’t generating enough revenue to maintain them. The last thing we can afford to do is eliminate the gas tax. If anything (and I know this isn’t going to be a popular thing to say), the cost of gasoline isn’t expensive enough. All you need to do is look to places like Europe with fuel anywhere from two to three times as much per gallon equivalent to know that ours is too cheap. This is honestly a supply and demand type situation. So long as there is an abundance of supply at low prices, people will not change their driving and public transit habits.

A huge part of the Triple Bottom Line is about treating people with dignity and respect. Many dialysis centers seem to take advantage of the fact that they have a captive audience. Protecting this at-risk population benefits everyone through lower healthcare costs.

Notable Supporters:

CA Democratic Party, CA Green Party

Notable Opposers:

CA Republican Party, CA Chamber of Commerce

Prop 10: Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property.

Vote: YES

I’m not a big fan of rent control, yet I see rents climbing out of control with no plan in place for stabilization. I included this Prop because it also resonates with the Triple Bottom Line.

Since livestock are the single largest source of global greenhouse gas emissions, anything that will make the price of meal and eggs go up in price is good for the environment.

Notable Supporters:

Sierra Club, CA Democratic Party, CA Green Party

Notable Neutral Parties:

League of Women Voters, CA Chamber of Commerce

Notable Opposers:

CA Republican Party

United States Senator

Vote: Kevin de Leon

As the President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate, de Leon was a huge advocate for SB100, which sets a goal of 100% carbon-neutral energy by 2035. I also think it’s time to bring a fresh perspective to the position.

Governor

Vote: Gavin Newsom

I’m not necessarily a fan of his, but I at least know that he will prioritize fighting climate change.

Los Angeles County Measure

W Los Angeles County Flood Control District – Measure W: Vote YES

This parcel tax will raise $300 million per year to support project to collect and reuse storm water.

For the following judge recommendations, I am basically towing the party line. Generally speaking, conservative judges fight vote against human rights and environmental protection, where as more liberal and progressive judges do.

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court – Carol A. Corrigan: NO

Justice Corrigan is considered a swing vote, but considered more moderate.